are there many guys on this diet ?

Welcome to The Fast Diet The official Fast forums Soul Support, chat and encourage
are there many guys on this diet ?

This topic contains 842 replies, has 80 voices, and was last updated by  penguin 4 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 50 posts - 551 through 600 (of 849 total)

  • Rob, You don’t sound confrontational, just frustrated. It is easily possible to overthink this – there are some very complicated theories on these sites, most of which I ignore. The only theory I really believe is the one you demonstrate – after a time at a given weight my body decides that is normal and whether I overeat or fast it will tend to stay there. It then takes a determined effort to get it to co-operate. Once it gets the idea it is relatively easy. So if I fast most weeks I lose weight, lapse for a month or so and it takes a few fasts to get going again. Fortunately my body’s current idea of normal is about 40 pounds less than it used to be. The answer is in simcoeluv’s last paragraph – stick with it and find what works for you.

    Hi Rob:

    While your TDEE can change without gaining or losing weight as a result of taking or quitting certain drugs, hormonal changes in the body or aging, as a general rule the main reason for a TDEE change is either weight gain or loss or a change in the amount of exercise you are doing. So I am not suggesting your body’s TDEE ‘adapts’ to calorie intake. It needs a certain amount of energy to operate, and if it is not getting that energy from food it will get it from fat/muscle reserves in the body until they run out. Unfortunately that is a proven result for millions each year who die of starvation.

    The heart of all of your statements is that you think or believe that you are eating less. But you really do not know. You have no facts to show you were eating X calories per week before you started the diet, and are eating X-3600 calories now. pdoran, penguin and I have all suggested you may be underestimating your caloric intake, especially on non diet days.

    One suggestion might be to ‘reboot’. Calculate your TDEE using ‘sedentary’ as your activity level (2148 cal.). I suggest ‘sedentary’ because research shows most people overestimate their activity levels by 30% or more. Continue to eat as you are eating but count calories for a couple of weeks. Count every thing you put in your mouth – a taste of this, a sip of that. And weigh and measure things – most people miss on portion size because they do not understand what a portion of something is. And as you have suggested with your calorie count for chicken, there are even different calorie counts given for ‘average’ portions, which leads to the question of how big is ‘average’? That is why weighing your portions is important – then you can go to calories per gram and get an accurate amount. If you do this, you will discover a few things. You will discover exactly how many calories you are eating. If you don’t gain or lose weight in the process, you will determine your actual TDEE number, regardless of what the calculator calculates. And then you will be able to adjust to reach the weight loss rates and amounts you want (within bodily limits).

    But I return to the fact you are still neither gaining nor losing weight. As you are eating to your TDEE, all you have to do to lose weight is eat less and you will begin losing weight, without having to go through all of the weighing and measuring and record keeping. There is simply no scientific evidence I am aware of that says a person can consistently eat under their TDEE and not lose weight.

    Good Luck!

    Thanks a lot penguin & simcoeluv,

    Simcoeluv I do appreciate your patience and I totally get your final point. I’m normally the first one to say, “Your anecdote does not trump scientific tests” 🙂 That’s at the heart of my frustration. I believe that I understand the theory, I’m absolutely confident that I’m applying it, and it’s not working. You say I am not “sure” about my calorie intake. That is only partly correct IMO. I am not sure what the numbers are. I AM sure that I am eating considerably less than before. No, I have no “proof” of that that would convince a court of law :-), but it’s true what others have said that the fasting makes me conscious of my eating habits 24/7 whereas I wasn’t before.

    I have cut down – NOT cut out – on a lot of snacking that was a regular part of my diet, and reduced frequency and portions of carbs in main meals. Again I don’t have records, but when I recall I went through maybe 2x or 3x 150g bags of potato crisps a week until late February (often as snacks, between meals), and have eaten maybe 2 bags in the 2 months since, I’m not imagining that. I haven’t replaced them with other snacks, I just haven’t eaten them.

    I cook for two, and if the portions had increased to the level required to stealthily replace 3600 “missing” calories (720 per day), I think my partner would have noticed! The only foodstuff I consciously eat more of than before is fresh vegetables; is there a “banana” of the vegetable patch? A stealth calorie-monster that I don’t know about? O GOD – IS IT THE COURGETTES!?!? 🙂

    I may have to take you chaps’ advice and give in to strict calorie-counting, for a short period at least. As it happens, I can work out nearly exactly what I have eaten today, after my (estimated) 600 calorie fast day yesterday, because I still have identical portions left. So I just put the figures into the calorie counter on the NHS website. I had an apple (50kcal) and 50g of Halloumi cheese (200kcal) for lunch, two large pork sausages (~200g) (400kcal) and ~250g of caliuflower “cous-cous” (100kcal) for dinner. Apparently that’s ~750kcal. Add in maybe 50kcal for a couple of cups of tea with ½tsp of sugar and a large glass of “no added sugar” squash. I’m feeling peckish so I’ll probably have another 50g of that cheese before bed. Generously, that comes to 1000kcal.

    Now, I’m not claiming that all or even most of my non-fast days are like today; I’m sure I do usually eat more than this. But it’s not unique either. I’ve had non-fast days where I’ve still only wanted one meal, albeit a larger one. I’m not feeling ravenous tonight; that sausage dinner was very satisfying. The notion that on other days, when I don’t have the figures to hand, I’m somehow getting through 3000+ calories seems, to say the least, fanciful. I know, I know – it has to be coming from somewhere! But unless I’m sleepwalking to the fridge and then out to the shop to replace what I eat before breakfast, I’m genuinely at a loss! 🙂

    Hi Rob:

    I think you have the idea. If you eat around 600 cal. twice a week, and around 1000 for the other 5 I suspect you will start to lose weight.

    Good Luck!

    No doubt! 🙂

    A bit extreme though, isn’t it? A long way from the original 5:2 instructions, which are to eat “normally” (i.e. 2400kcal) on the 5 days. 6200 calories per week begins to sound like the “starvation” diet that 5:2 is supposed to avoid. I’m not sure I’m up for that.

    I think I have a plan based on everything I’ve learned so far: I’m going to carry on as before for one more month, but with much more regular weighing, to look for variations and to make sure that it’s not (particularly stubborn) inertia to blame. Then I’ll try perhaps two weeks of strict calorie-counting to 600:2400. If there’s still no significant movement, I’ll try zero-calorie fast days for maybe another two weeks, then re-assess.

    Once again, thanks for the responses. I’ll no doubt be back with long-winded reports – but hopefully not for a while! 🙂

    Day 2 Florida USA FD @rob1701 I follow strictly Michael Moseley’s original research in The Fast Diet. I never fast on consecutive days or for more than 24 hours. Following this plan my husband lost 20 pounds in 4 months and I lost 16. The other ways of fasting I know I could not follow as a Way of Life and that’s what I’m looking for. My husband is a physician and recommends this version of the 5/2 to any of his friends looking to lose weight and improve health. Good luck to you!

    Hi Rob,

    You need to change things up. Keep doing the same thing and you will get the same result. There is no magic involved. If you have genuinely reduced your caloric intake then your body has also reduced its caloric activity to match.
    Or you are grossly underestimating what you are eating. I must admit that when I had just gone into maintenance I used to think that what I was eating was WAY below 2100 calories. What I was having was looked to be so little there was no way it could have been adding up to 2100 cal. So I weighed everything I ate for a few days. Sure enough I was having 2100 calories. 2100 calories is NOT a lot of food. Our sense of portion has been destroyed by modern society.

    I still water fast one day a week even though Ive been at my maintenance weight for about 18 months now. I do it for health reasons and not to lose any more weight. If I find myself dipping too far below my self imposed weight 70kg (154 lbs) I will usually have one or two days where I will eat “cheap” carbs rather than more food. BANG. The next week I’ll be back up to my set weight. A calorie is a calorie is such a myth. Different foods are processed differently. 1000 calories worth of donuts is not processed the same as 1000 calories worth of broccoli.

    Portion size is critical. Totally agree.

    Snacking undercuts the point of fasting. Avoid at all costs because it then becomes a routine.

    If you cut the cals, you will lose weight. Maybe it will take time but you will lose weight.

    Excercise will keep you fit and strong and also make you feel good about yourself but not necessarily make you lose any weight.

    Alcohol intake is also critical. Bit of a taboo subject too. It’s best to avoid totally during the week.

    I’m having trouble stabilizing at my target weight because it’s so easy to drop back into the old routine. A bit of cheese, another beer, a small whisky, a chunk of chocolate.
    In my head I’m thinking “well now I know how to get the weight down easily”.
    It’s not a good way to think is it ? Not the right way anyway.

    Good luck to you all though.

    David V have you had me under surveillance? I agree with that totally, except that I don’t recognise the concept of a small whisky.

    LOL @ penguin…

    Again, to clarify, I have never calorie-counted before, so I’m entirely open to the idea that what I eat on a non-fast day is over my TDEE of 2400 calories, because I have no trained instinct as to what a calorie is. What I can’t accept is that I’m not eating significantly less than I was before. I have radically reduced snacking, slightly reduced portion sizes at main meals, and replaced what I feel is about two-thirds (so let’s call it 25%!) of my pasta / rice / potatoes with vegetable alternatives like courgette spaghetti and cauliflower cous-cous. I am constantly hungry (only slightly, and not in an uncomfortable way, but I’m always aware of it now and never before) and my activity level is the same.

    As I’ve now conceded, probably the only way to get to the bottom of this is to strictly calorie-count for a while; something I am loathe to do as I feel it’s a slippery slope to diet-obsession, and that I thought 5:2 was specifically meant to avoid. Once it starts, the problem I see is how to avoid the natural temptation to consciously, artificially reduce my intake to fix the figures. I guess we’ll see!

    Hi,
    I do intermittent fasting but the way I do it is to consume no calories at all and only drink water for as long as I can manage (up to three days).

    I congratulate those people who have intermittent calorie restriction which works and helps them to lose weight.

    That diet simply doesn’t work for me because I find it easier to eat nothing than just a little. If I eat just a little I cannot completely free myself myself from the thought of having to have food and I end up clock watching more wondering when I can eat and thinking about what I’m going to have to eat.

    When I eat nothing at all in my fasting periods I do still think about food, but only for short intervals. The rest of the time my mind is completely off food.

    Rob,

    You don’t need to constantly calorie count. Do it for a week or so. You will then confirm how much you are eating. If its a lot more than you thought then you need to recalibrate what a portion is. If you are genuinely eating up to your TDEE then it comes down to WHAT types of foods you are eating and not HOW much you are eating. I’ll say it again, 1000 calories worth of donuts will not be processed the same as 1000 calories of broccoli.

    Perhaps now that you are only eating pasta/rice/potatoes about a 1/3 of the time compared to previously your body is going all out and storing those carbs as fat because it knows it wont be getting it again for a few days.

    When I first stared water fasting on Mondays (I have never changed my fast day) I used to wake up hungry on a Monday morning. Now that I have been doing this for two years I no longer wake up hungry on Mondays. My body has gotten used to this regimen. I suspect that your body has gotten used to your new regimen and has found a way to “cheat”. You need to change things up to outsmart your body.

    Hi bigbooty:

    I understand how/why processed carbs are processed differently by the body than are fats.

    But are you saying that if a person has a TDEE of 2000, and eats only donuts, which amount to a total of 1000 cal., each day, leaving a 7000 cal. deficit for the week, the person will either not lose or will gain weight over, say, a 4 to 8 week period?

    Sim,

    The value of 1000 was just a random number I pulled out of nowhere. Not to be taken literally. Im not going to debate the “healthiness” of a particular diet. That is another subject completely. Lets pretend your TDEE is 2000 Calories. Lets pick a more reasonable deficit. If you were to eat 1800 cal of donuts (or any other processed carb crap) vs. 1800 cal worth of broccoli (or any other whole food) for the week, with respect to weight loss, in all likeliness you will not lose anything eating the donuts even though supposedly for the week you will have run a deficit of 1400 calories. Eating a 1400 deficit of broccoli will most probably result in weight loss.

    The concept that a calorie is a calorie is just pure myth. Its like believing in unicorns.

    If you eat a slight deficit (1800 instead of 2000) consisting of donuts all that will happen is that the excess glucose will be quickly stored as glycogen and then once those stores are full it will be stored as fat. Because you will most likely have high insulin levels accessing stored fats will be impossible. So what happens is that since you can not access stored fats easily, and you can not eat anymore (self imposed diet) the only recourse left is for your body to reduce its metabolic activity. It will do this my shutting down non essential bodily functions, running slightly colder, and making sure your day to day activity is slowed down. You will now on average have a TDEE of 1800 during this time period.

    Conversely if you were to run on 1800 worth of broccoli (I use the term broccoli figuratively and not literally, any healthy non processed carb) your TDEE will remain at 2000 for the week. You will burn 1800 worth of ingested calories and the remaining 200 will come from fat stores. Hence you will lose weight.

    When I water fast every Monday I have noticed that I “feel” as if Im running slightly colder. To prove to myself that it wasn’t my imagination I borrowed the IR (infra red) gun from work. I was in fact running colder in an effort to save calories while fasting. It was only slight but it was my body’s attempt to conserve energy.

    Mouth 36.7C non fasting day
    Mouth 36.0C fasting day
    Tongue NFD 35.8
    Tongue FD 35.3
    Armpit NFD 35.8
    Armpit FD 35.3
    Ear NFD 35.0
    Ear FD 33.5
    Stomach NFD 33.6
    Stomach FD 33.9

    The only part of my body that went up in temperature was my stomach and the weird thing is that I have always felt that my abdomen was running hot while fasting. This just confirmed it.

    Every now and then I will drop below my self imposed lower limit of 69kg (152 lbs) as I want to continue fasting every Monday for all the other benefits. To put weight back on quickly I will eat some simple processed carbs for one or two days. A few slices of bread or a small portion of pasta or a “healthy” muesli bar or two. Im not necessarily eating any more calories for the week but Ive swapped over to some processed carbs. Bang. I will get a quick weight gain which puts me over my minimum again and then I go back to eating my normal fair which is heavy on veggies, nuts, legumes and a little bit of meat.

    Okay, well I may be a neophyte in the world of nutrition & dieting (as must be obvious by now!) but I do have scientific training, so I’m going to address bigbooty’s repeated statement that “‘a calorie is a calorie’ is a myth”.

    A calorie is a scientific unit. Although it doesn’t fit into the SI system, it is metric and fully standardized. A calorie is defined as the amount of energy required to raise the temperature 1g of water by 1’C at 1 atm pressure, and what is called a “calorie” for the purposes of nutrition is actually a “kilocalorie”, which is this figure multiplied by 1000. So; a calorie IS a standard amount of energy. A calorie absolutely IS a calorie. To say otherwise is – on the face of it – the same as saying that a kilo of feathers weighs less than a kilo of lead.

    However, what I think bigbooty is really talking about is the ways separate food groups release their calorific energy, which can be quite different (A kilo of feathers may WEIGH no more than a kilo of lead, but it’s a lot more awkward to carry, and almost impossible to make a drainpipe out of…) Dietary fibre, for example, contains calories but is not digested, so the amount of dietary calories actually absorbed from high-fibre food is considerably less than its total calorific content. As far as I can ascertain from reading around the issue, these differences are taken into account by applying absorption-specific correction factors when calculating energy values for commercial food labels – although the system for doing so is imperfect and contentious. So calorific values on labels should still approximate the calories made available to the body on absorption.

    I guess how accurate (or otherwise) you believe these approximations to be, determines how strongly you feel the statement “a calorie is a calorie is a myth” can be justified. One thing seems unequivocally clear to me, however – if you DO believe that, then you can’t possibly use calories as a meaningful tool in weight control, AT ALL. You’d need to do your own separate calculations on every single mouthful you ate, based on (presumably) your own exhaustive scientific research of the energy absorption rates on every foodstuff you ever have, or are ever likely to, consume.

    Conversely, if we are to continue to use calories to design and regulate diet plans like 5:2, then we have to be talking about the same thing, so “a calorie is a calorie” is a given, or we’re all wasting our time.

    Hi Rob:

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    The answer to my simple question is that the person would lose over a pound a week. They would also lose over a pound a week if they ate 1000 cal. of broccoli instead of donuts.

    The reason people tend to gain weight when eating a lot of sugar and other processed carbs is that the body processes them quickly, which leads to low blood sugar levels relatively shortly after eating, which leads to hunger, which leads to the person eating again because they are hungry. The ultimate result is that they eat too many calories and gain weight.

    The opposite occurs when fat and moderate amounts of protein are eaten instead of processed carbs. The food is processed slowly by the body, and a constant supply of blood sugar is provided to the body over a much longer time than when carbs are eaten. The body is therefore not hungry, people don’t eat because they are not hungry, and the bottom line is they eat fewer calories and don’t gain weight, and many lose weight (the original Atkins diet – now characterized as LCHF – has proven that for decades).

    The other impact of eating sugar and other processed carbs is that the high blood sugar spikes caused by them results in the body storing the excess sugar as glycogen. As the body requires about 3 to 4 grams of water to store a gram of glycogen, the body will gain water weight when too many processed carbs are eaten. This explains why when people go on holiday and go off their diets they sometimes come back several pounds heavier. It also explains why when they go back on their diet (or start a diet in the first place) their weight rapidly drops (water weight loss) as glycogen stores are used to compensate for the fact the person is not eating enough calories for the body to operate the way it wants to operate. Once glycogen levels stabilize, weight loss slows as most of the weight being lost is fat weight and it takes much longer to lose a lot of fat weight than it does to lose water weight. This is when many complain of hitting a ‘plateau’ and either quit the diet or look for ways to resume the rapid weight loss initially experienced.

    While the biological processes are quite complicated, the practical results are obvious to the observant person and can be seen in posts all over this and other sites. People observe that when they start the diet they lose a lot of weight quickly, but then their rate of loss slows down or even stops for awhile. After they have been on the diet for awhile they post that when they have eaten carbs over the weekend they gain a quick pound or two. They notice on diet days that if they eat toast and sugar they are very hungry, but if they eat fat or protein they are less hungry.

    But the bottom line is, as you said, a calorie is an international unit of measurement that does not vary between broccoli and gasoline – it is what it is. And to say they do not matter ignores the fact science has determined the body needs a certain number of them to operate, and when the body has too many it stores them for future use, and when it has too few it uses the ones stored to make up the difference.

    Weight loss diet books tend to ignore or disguise this basic fact because they couldn’t sell many if they didn’t have the something new, different or revolutionary to cause weight loss.

    5:2, though, is quite simple and does not dodge this basic fact. It works because twice a week it cuts a number of calories out of a person’s diet. And if the person does not replace those cut out calories on the other five days by overeating on those days, the person will lose weight – regardless of the foods they are eating.

    You are both technically correct. A calorie is a specific unit of energy. My intent was to point out that how that unit of energy relates to a biological system is too simplistic and people misuse the concept. I own a Ferrari and run it on 100 octane fuel. If I place “XX” calorific content into the tank the car will run for a certain amount of “XX” time depending on the output demands. If I replace it with the same “XX” calorific content but the fuel is diesel will the car run just as well? What if I chop up some wood having the same calorific content and place it in the tank? This is the concept I was trying to get across but I suspect that you knew that.

    Our biological system has evolved over millions of years to run on certain fuels. Use these fuels and it runs well. Use other fuels and our bodies still run, sort of OK for a period of time and then stop. In the last 50 off years the quality and quantity of that fuel has drastically changed. I know Ive simplified the concept but at its core its correct. If you eat the wrong foods your biological response makes it VERY hard to diet.

    Its very hard to just eat 2000 Cal of donuts as your TDEE, and not want to eat more. The biological response is to shuttle all the excess glucose off to fat storage via an insulin response. That insulin spike takes hours to dissipate. The 4 grams of glucose running through your blood system is consumed. However your ability to access stored fat energy reserves is severely compromised. The so called sugar crash. Realistically you have two options available. You reduce your activity or you seek more fuel even though you are carrying huge amounts of fuel on board as fat. Its very hard for you to “not eat” when your brain is responding to hormonal inputs that are screaming for you to take the action to eat more. Eat whole foods and you make the task of running your body well a lot easier. That’s my analogy behind donuts vs. broccoli.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Article at link Might be useful, provide a little research discussion, for those following this discussion. The article discusses the calories in calories out model, first law of thermodynamics, and how the human body responds to changing caloric intake (depending on type of calories consumed). Very informative IMO.

    Thanks for the clarification, bigbooty. That and the link bcjmmac sent do go a long way to explaining the theory.

    What I’m still fuzzy on, though: The 5:2 diet, in all descriptions I have read, is characterized as an input-reduction diet, essentially on the “CICO” model; consume fewer calories – expend the same – lose weight. But the article above seems to suggest that it is actually the lowering of insulin that gives 5:2 its effectiveness, and the calorie input reduction per se is secondary, if relevant at all.

    I haven’t seen any 5:2 instructions that require a reduction in carb intake on non-fast days. One of the main selling points of 5:2 is that you “eat normally” on the 5 days. Cutting carbs in addition is often mentioned as a good idea but NOT one essential to the scheme. Everything I read about 5:2 suggests to me that I could (if I chose) follow a high-carb diet with 2 days of fasting, and lose weight. But this LCHF/Insulin theory seems to suggest otherwise, and that a reduced carb intake is necessary to prevent insulin “spikes”. Would you say that was right? Because if so, I think it needs to be made clearer to those embarking on the diet.

    In my own case, I believe I have cut down on carbs, but I also suspect I started from a position of fairly high carb intake. I’m still not sure any of this explains my reported lack of results on 5:2. However, since I started this conversation a few days ago I’ve been weighing myself every day as advised, and there is a pronounced downward trend this week – probably because I’ve been obsessing, which I promised I wouldn’t do – so, onwards and downwards! 🙂

    My point of view on this. Moseley saw the benefits of fasting & wanted a simple plan/concept that anyone could follow. He specifically avoids getting too deep into the science of fasting &/or physiology as many people would tune out. Additionally, the science in this area has numerous conflicting studies so you can say something only to have it contradicted by a new “study” ($ behind them likely skewing the results).
    In any case, fasting by definition will lower the bodies stores of glycogen & drive insulin levels down & allow your body to release fat stores for conversion to glucose. Following a low carb diet, either just on FDs or all the time, will help.

    Rob,

    Michael’s 5:2 was to a large degree born out of research conducted by Valter Longo (and Krista Varady). He himself practices water only fasting 4 days straight per month. Personally I think I would struggle with that but find one day per week do-able. Michael plucked the figure of 500/600 out of thin air as that is what he thought most people could at least do. At the end of the day if you propose a regimen that is too harsh even if you know it will work 100% and no one follows it, then what good is it?

    I don’t think Im a low carb person per se’, its just that my carbs are not processed. I get them from veggies, nuts and some fruit. If they are locked up in fibre and your body has to work to extract the fuel then all is working as it should be. Im of Italian heritage and I very rarely have pasta and bread any more. Now here’s a interesting story. I asked my mum what she used to eat as a child growing up in Italy. Thinking the reply would be pasta and pizza. It was mostly veggies, beans and a little bit of fish and sometimes red meat. Pasta and pizza was considered a “treat”. To be had maybe once per week. Crazy right? Now we treat those foods as staples and even processed biscuits and cakes have turned into food staples!!

    If you visit the maintenance section and talk to those that have been successful there is a common thread. Most either avoid or limit processed carbs. Its not like its a secret club where the members hide their knowledge. They freely give advice, but a lot of people just dismiss it. It does agitate (probably not the right word) me that people are determined to treat 5:2 as some sort of magical bullet that will allow them to eat crap for 5 days a week as long as you then reduce the calories for 2 days. Do I miss eating all that processed crap? Not really. Am I a saint about it? No, every now and then I’ll have a piece of cake or a chocolate but its a treat not a staple.

    Good luck with it.

    I have never driven a Ferrari – my own fun comes from an MG. However I am old enough to have known multi fuel engines on agricultural tractors and military vehicles. They would run on poor quality sludge but did very much better on good quality fuel. The sludge eventually gummed up the system and it had to be stripped down and cleaned out – difficult with the human body.

    The other thing about age is that you see the theories come and go. I was born during WW2 and food rationing continued until I was 10. Eggs, butter, cheese, sugar, meat were available in tiny quantities. I ate a lot of bread, potatoes and cabbages. At the time this was thought a terrible thing but now everyone says that was when the population was healthiest. As a child I was given full fat milk at school, since declared a bad thing, now back in favour. I have seen fat outlawed and oils good, but fat is now OK again. I have been told to eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day, now increased to ten. The recommended alcohol limit keeps changing and differs depending on where you live – in Ireland it is twice as high as in the UK. Over the years I have done the Atkins Diet, the Cambridge Diet, I have eaten nothing but fruit, nothing but cabbage, I have banned carbs, I have water fasted – you name it and I have given it a go. All of those diets worked, whilst I was on them, but you can’t live on them and when you stop the weight goes back on. The joy of 5:2 is that I can live on it, I have been doing so since it started and it it is simple. All of the scientific stuff above is valid, but I don’t need to know it. Forgive me, but I no longer care about the theories – simcoeluv got it right a couple of posts back when he said “find what works for you and do it”. Reducing the kcals and eating a balanced diet has taken over 40 lbs off me. It could have been more, but like David V I know that this is an easy way to lose weight so If I lapse and gain a bit it doesn’t matter – the overall trend is down.

    Recent posts have been getting very technical !
    Which is slightly the opposite direction that the 5:2 diet promotes.
    It’s simplicity is what drew me to it.
    A simple cal reduction on 2 days of the week.

    But I quickly found that you don’t really eat “as normal” on the other days.
    Once you gain more knowledge about the portions you eat and the cals in everything I found I was cutting much more than a few calories on those 5 days.
    I was stunned when I saw the cals in carbs for example. Rice, potatoes, pasta, pizza. My staples. Bread too.
    So I cut them down to a minimum. Maybe once a week and I didn’t feel tired either even when doing sports. I’m sure this was a big contribution to the weight I lost. And as I have been eating more of them recently, my weight has gone up.

    Anyone tried just water on the FDs ? As said, Mosely promotes the 600 cals on those days because people can do it but if you can do just water, would you lose more weight ?

    Yes I have done just water. Two days of that gives an extra 1200 cal deficiency and it is effective – I think there is a limit to how much weight you can lose in 2 days, but zero cal for me really shifts it. That may be 3 lb of water loss for every 1 lb of glycogen, but it is still less weight on my knees And I do mean pounds – a 48 hour total fast will take 6 lb off me. My normal approach is Monday and Tuesday at 600 cal unless I have lapsed and regained weight, in which case it is Mon/Tues of water only (although I will permit myself black coffee or tea without milk).

    Hi David,

    It got all technical because Rob was stuck and was wanting to know how to change things up. Well I think that’s how it got all technical. If it works then all is good. Its when it doesn’t work that you need to deviate from the basic 5:2. And there are enough posts on here to suggest 5:2 doesn’t work for everyone. That’s when you need to change things up.

    Wow, what an interesting series of posts over the last week; thank you all for the views and inputs.
    Personal note:I took a hiatus from my own 5:2 path for the last 10 days as I dealt with health challenges. As a type 2 diabetic, mostly medication free, managing my health through diet and mild exercise to date has been successful and I wish to keep it that way. After having body chemistry tests updated this week, protein in my urine is a new concern that was not an issue pre-5:2; I am now refocusing on actual diet components.

    PS: @penquin : my first car was a “previously enjoyed” 1971 MGB

    Good man. In the mid 70s I drove one of those that had experienced a lot of “previous enjoyment” before it came my way. My current MG is a 2010 model TF – the one with the mid engine. Great fun, but I lust after an original TD or TF from the 1950s.

    Hi guys. As a mid 50’s bloke I previously lost 10kg but gradually put it back on. After weighing myself post Easter binge at 79kg, committed to getting back to at least a more healthy 72kg. While FD are not a real problem for me get these out of the way on Monday-Tuesday), it is the NFD where my will power disappears.
    Hope support on this forum will keep me from straying – and provide inspiration for a thinner me. Weighed myself today and already 1.0kg less! But trying to look at what I eat over the next few days to keep it off.

    [post removed]

    Hello gents, I’m back from three weeks in France and Italy. I actually lost 1.5 lbs and weigh less than 180lbs for the first time in a year. However the way I lost it was not pleasant. I did eat and drink moderately, walk tons and did body weight exercises for the first two weeks. The last four days I was sick as a dog and ate very little. I spent my time either in bed or on the toilet. Fortunately I was able to get back home without any issues. Hit the gym today for an upper body workout and was pleased that I didn’t lose much strength. I’m very grateful that I’m recovering and able to get back to good health.

    Ah diverdog, that brings back memories. Hong Kong 1963, Belize mid 80s, Spain 1999 – the joys of travel. The memories were reinforced last week – on Saturday I had a colonoscopy the preparation for which has a similar effect. I am down 6 pounds over the week. My Monday gym session was a little low on energy!

    Back at 5:2 as best I can through daily diary; reality check after a full medical, not to mention summer clothes are hard to hide in! Just heard another medical study verification of the HIIT benefits for all age groups; they skip the whole ongoing motivation source need though. Best regards to all; Victoria Day long weekend here in Canada.

    To all in the UK: Please accept my sincere condolences on the Horror in Manchester; know all sane people are in shock.

    Hello Gents, just back from more travel to my dysfunctional sorta in-laws. Lots of stress and junk food. Gained 2.5 lbs to 180.4. No one to blame but me!

    I’ve been doing quite a bit of research and I’m going to make a few changes. First I’m going to do time restricted eating to synchronize my solar and eating clocks. My first meal will be breakfast around 8:00 AM, starting a nine hour window to my last meal. I will eat healthy (moderate protein, high fiber, high fat, low carb) but I won’t be restricting calories. After that it will be water only.

    Second will be a twice a week water fast instead of the 600 calorie 5:2 style 36 hour fast.

    I have a blood test panel tomorrow so it will be my first attempt at a water only fast. I’m a coffee junky so it will be a big challenge for me.

    Diverdog: My daughter does that time restricted eating. In her case nothing until 4pm, then in theory as you describe, but with two girls of her own some junk food creeps in. Even so, it seems to work. Water only fasting certainly works. The combination of the two should be very effective.
    Progress reports please.

    How about a “no-progress” but “back at it” report? Restarts count, I am told, as we all deal with real world issues that set us back a step or two. My food and exercise diary has many recent gaps between entries. Looking today at 30-60-90 day mini goals to get back on a sustainable track.
    Condolences and encouragement,again, to all in the UK as we continue to absorb the most recent insanity.

    August, we all fall off the wagon from time to time. Continuing to make an effort counts. Penguin, my first week of fasting didn’t go well as in I didn’t fast at all. I did follow the time restricted eating plan and ate well. I lost 2.6 lbs.

    Diverdog. 2.6 lbs in a week is what the gurus consider a satisfactory and sustainable result. You are on track. I am thoroughly off that wagon. The 6 lbs I lost preparing for my colonoscopy are back on. It has been a disorganised spring/early summer and I am now 14 lbs heavier than I was at my lowest point, which puts me 21 lbs above target. However, I have my Cancer check results – still clear so no more excuses.

    August, I’m with you. In the past 5:2 was too easy and I got too casual about it. A series of goals setting out achievable (but not easy) objectives is what I am currently working on. I started again on Monday/Tuesday and have made small but measurable progress. Thanks for your thoughts. The UK has been here before – thirty years ago I did morning push-ups by my car to look for IRA bombs under it. This is more difficult, the suicide aspect is new. We have our General Election today – tomorrow we will know which of the contenders will have to solve the problem.

    Penguin, how wonderful you are cancer free! Awesome news! I know you will be making nice progress on your fasting moving forward.

    I’d be ecstatic if I could continue losing 2.6 lb a week, I’d be at my goal in one month. I’m not counting on it though. I’m a bit miffed at myself for not getting at least one water fast day in a week for the other health benefits besides fat loss.

    Thanks Dog. I had the surgery a year ago; this was confirmation that it worked so I was pretty relaxed, but still good to know! The real problem the surgery left me with was the alcohol. Initially my interior would not tolerate beer or wine but was fine with whisky. I was also fine with whisky but it did get to be a habit. It is a habit with calories and it stimulates the hunger. No excuses now, so I’ll be trying to match your 2.6 lb a week.

    @penquin: Let me add my congratulations on the clear report and thanks to you and @diverdog on the encouragement. Good to know I am not the only non-candidate for a Calvin Klein ad campaign!

    Thanks August. Have a look at the site “No breakfast, or more like…” Diverdog has a really interesting thought on daily cycles and their possible use to us.

    @penquin: Good thought, I just have to be careful of glucose levels as a Type II. Life is an adventure!

    Gent’s, here is some great information on circadian clocks, eating patterns and fasting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R-eqJDQ2nU

    Week 2 results with time restricted eating. (actually 5 days) Lost 3.6 lbs (174.2 lbs) total loss 6.2 lbs in two weeks

    I eat a big meal shortly after getting up and exposing myself to bright sunlight and have my last meal no more than 10 hours later. Nothing but water after. No attempt to limit calories other than eating moderate fat & protein, low carb IE no starchy veggies or grains, and lots of high fiber veggies.

    I did one fast day this week 6 PM to 9 AM (39 hours). My first attempt at a “water fast”. Actually I cheated because I had several cups of black coffee in the morning. It was not too hard to do. I had the urge to taste food but physically not real hungry.

    I’m very excited and motivated to see what week three holds for me

    Progress report. Week one of back on the wagon. In this order:
    2 not very hard FDs,
    2 NFDs ,
    1 x 10 hour time restricted eating (TRE), but too much booze,
    1 NFD with the family – real cider, large meal and chocolate cake,
    1 extremely TRE -only a very substantial breakfast at 0930. 22 hours later, still not hungry

    I ignored the restriction on types of fluid outside the TRE hours -as much tea/coffee with milk, no sugar as I wanted. Result for week: down 5 lbs. I’m not sure I believe it; it was too easy. The late breakfast was on Sunday, probably the only day that would work, but a single later meal could work during the week. 5 lbs in a week is not sustainable, but it is an encouraging start.

    @diverdog and @penquin : Thank you for the progress reports, they are encouraging with good tips. I plan on am watching the circadian clocks, eating patterns and fasting video for the second time today.
    I restarted on the 7th so shorter term results shy of a week so far. My main change has been a reboot of my daily food and exercise diary. My NFD eating was improving up until I was attacked by a Farmer’s Market Salmon pie purchase, and potato chips, when planted in front of the TV for the Stanley Cup (NHL) final last night. Sigh…at 86.4 K (85.9 yesterday) this am, low so far this year was a happy 84 k; realistic goal is 80 k with BF of 20%, a stretch goal is with BF of 15%.
    Increased activity over the weekend including one very long bike ride. Realistic Weight training remains elusive.
    Best regards gentlemen

    August, those damn salmon pies are sneaky! Thanks for keeping us posted on your progress. Good goals and they should be attainable. I’m shooting for <15% BF too.

    Penguin, 5 lbs is awesome! I agree that it’s not sustainable for someone as close to goal weight as you are. If I can sustain 2 lbs a week to my goal I’ll be delighted.

    I didn’t mention that I had a small glass of wine with dinner most nights. also I am exercising, 1 upper body, 1 lower body and one HIIT on the bike in a 6 day cycle. Weigh work outs are heavy and hard and I’m happy to report that I can finally do some pull ups again. 4-5 short walks a day with my GF’s dog. Well I guess he’s mine now! LOL

    Progress report. A good/bad week. Splendid week socially, but drank too much. Result, only one pound down over the week. As my school reports used to say “Must try harder”.

Viewing 50 posts - 551 through 600 (of 849 total)

You must be logged in to reply.